alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Breadcrumb

1. Home

2. Print 

3. Pdf 

4. Node 

5. Entity Print 

NVAP Reference Guide: Transmissible

Spongiform Encephalopathies

Last Modified: 

Print

Transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs) are rare progressive

neurodegenerative disorders that affect both humans and animals and are caused

by similar uncharacterized agents that generally produce spongiform changes in the

brain. Specific examples of TSEs include classical and Nor98-like scrapie, which

affect sheep and goats; bovine spongiform encephalopathy, which affects cattle, and

rarely other bovidae (nyala, oryx, eland, kudu, and goats), domestic and exotic cats

(feline spongiform encephalopathy), humans (variant Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease),

and zoo primates; transmissible mink encephalopathy; and chronic wasting disease

of mule deer, white- tailed deer, black-tailed deer, elk and moose.

TSEs are insidious degenerative diseases of the central nervous system. Historically,

the diagnosis of TSEs has been based on the occurrence of clinical signs of the

disease, which could only be confirmed by postmortem examination of brain tissue

using histopathology. More recently, identifying the presence of abnormal prion

protein by various techniques has allowed preclinical diagnosis. 

A characteristic feature of all TSEs is the lack of a measurable host immune

response to the agent, meaning that no antibodies are produced. No conventional

serologic test can be used to identify infected animals. Scientists usually diagnose

TSEs in the laboratory by immunohistochemistry, western blot, or ELISA performed

on brain and or lymphoid tissue which may be followed by one or more
supplemental tests. 

Three TSEs will be discussed in this chapter; Scrapie, Bovine Spongiform

Encephalopathy, and Chronic Wasting Disease.
#### Jones v. JVVC, Inc.

16884

3/28/96

Vacated and Remanded
EXHIBIT 99.2



CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT



I, Jerrold J. Pellizzon, Chief Financial Officer of
Ceradyne, Inc. (the Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



| | (1) |  | the Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the annual period ended December 31, 2002 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 780(d)); and
| | --- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) |  | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dated:    March 31, 2003



/s/ JERROLD J. PELLIZZONJerrold J. Pellizzon Chief Financial Officer
26725

#### State v. Alvarez

Reversed and Remanded
Breadcrumb

1. Hogar

2. Print 

3. Pdf 

4. Node 

5. Entity Print 

The Federally Recognized State

Managed Phytosanitary Program

Last Modified: 

Print

APHIS established the Federally Recognized State Managed Phytosanitary (FRSMP,

pronounced “free-stamp”) program to promote greater consistency in actions taken

against certain plant pests, whether those pests arrive at U.S. ports of entry or are

moving interstate.  

By better harmonizing import and interstate requirements, APHIS strengthens its

ability to advocate for safe, fair and reciprocal treatment of U.S. exports by our

trading partners.

Learn More

Information for Importers

Pests Regulated Under a FRSMP Program 

Pests No Longer Regulated at Ports of Entry 

Frequently Asked Questions for Importers 

For questions about EANs, please contact the APHIS office nearest your shipment's

port of arrival:
State Plant Health Directors

Plant Inspection Stations

Information for States

Petition Guidelines 

Federal Collaborator Plant Protection Act Training Workbook 

Plant Protection Act 

Pests No Longer Regulated at Ports of Entry 

Frequently Asked Questions for States 

Contact Us

For more information about the FRSMP program, or to submit a question, send an

email to:

FRSMP Program

Email: frsmp@usda.gov
#### David Melvin et al., Doing Business as Sam Melvin & Sons, Respondents, *v.*Public Service Mutual Insurance Company, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department,

December 23, 1958.

*E. Edan Spencer*for appellant.

*Spar, Schlem <& Burroughs (Martin A. Burroughs*of counsel), for respondents.

*625*Per Curiam.*

The unexcused delay of at least 35 days in giving notice to defendant after plaintiffs had become fully aware that the claim being asserted against them was within the coverage of defendant’s policy was, under the circumstances presented herein, a breach of condition as a matter of law, and fatal to the plaintiffs’ cause of action *(Deso*v. *London & Lancashire Ind. Co. of America,*3 N Y 2d 127; *Vanderbilt*v. *Indemnity Ins. Co. of North America,*265 App. Div. 495).

The order dated March 13, 1958 granting plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment should be unanimously reversed upon the law and facts, with $10 costs and taxable disbursements to defendant, motion denied and summary judgment granted in favor of defendant dismissing the complaint. Appeals from orders dated June 26, 1957 and February 4, 1958, dismissed. These orders were superseded by the order of March 13,1958.

Concur — Pette, Di Giovanna and Brown, JJ.

Order reversed, etc.
Navigate to Homepage
Search
Main navigation
  

        
              Explore the Capitol Campus
                          Art
                            Buildings & Grounds
                            Capitol Hill Facts
                            Visitor Resources
                            Our Blog
                            What We Do
                          Areas of Expertise
                            Programs & Ceremonies
                            Projects
                            Publications
                            Strategic Objectives
                            About Us
                          Who We Are
                            History of the AOC
                            News & Notices
                            Organizational Structure
                            Partnerships & Recognition
                            Work With UsSearch Breadcrumb
    HomeExplore the Capitol CampusThe Art Collection
Napoleon I, Relief Portrait
        
                  The Basics
      
Artist
      
C. Paul Jennewein

Materials
    Marble

Year
    1950

Location
      
House Chamber

Napoleon I (1769-1821) Emperor of France. Appointed a commission to draw up the Code Civil, a combination of tradition and Roman law that influenced the legal systems of European and American states during the 19th century.

The 23 marble relief portraits over the gallery doors of the House Chamber in the U.S. Capitol depict historical figures noted for their work in establishing the principles that underlie American law. They were installed when the chamber was remodeled in 1949-1950. Serve. Preserve. Inspire.

              Contact Us
                            Accountability
                            Hill Staff Resources
                            AOC Staff Resources
Utility
  

        
              Privacy Policy
                            Image Terms of Use
                            Inspector General
                            U.S. Botanic Garden
                            U.S. Capitol Visitor CenterFacebook
	Twitter
	Flickr
	YouTube
	Instagram
	Subscribe
Exhibit 23  Consent of Independent Registered Public
Accounting Firm  We consent to the incorporation
by reference in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) of Magellan Health Services, Inc.
of our report dated February 25, 2009, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements of Magellan Health Services, Inc., included in the 2008 Annual
Report to Shareholders of Magellan Health Services, Inc..  Our audits also included the
financial statement schedule of Magellan Health Services, Inc. listed in
Item 15(a). This schedule is the responsibility of Magellan Health Services, Inc.s
management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion based on our audits. In
our opinion, as to which the date is February 25, 2009, the financial
statement schedule referred to above, when considered in relation to the basic
financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly in all material respects
the information set forth therein.  We consent to the incorporation
by reference in the following Registration Statements of Magellan Health
Services, Inc.:  Form
  
  Registration Number
  
  Date FiledS-8
  
  333-151509
  
  5/20/2008S-8
  
  333-141056
  
  3/05/2007S-8
  
  333-134202
  
  5/17/2006S-8
  
  333-134201
  
  5/17/2006S-8
  
  333-134199
  
  5/17/2006S-8
  
  333-123222
  
  3/09/2005
  of our report dated February 25,
2009, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Magellan Health
Services, Inc. incorporated herein by reference, our report dated February 25,
2009, with respect to the effectiveness of internal control over financial
reporting of Magellan Health Services, Inc., included herein, and our
report included in the preceding paragraph with respect to the financial
statement schedule of Magellan Health Services, Inc. included in this
Annual Report  (Form 10-K) of Magellan
Health Services, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2008.  /s/ Ernst & Young LLPBaltimore, MarylandFebruary 25, 2009
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Small Business Administration

          - [Disaster Declaration #18061 and #18062; Hawaii Disaster Number HI-00073]

# AGENCY:

Small Business Administration.

# ACTION:

Correction to amendment 5.

# SUMMARY:

This is a correction to the amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Hawaii (FEMA-4724-DR), dated 08/10/2023.

*Incident:*                         Wildfires, including High Winds.                    

*Incident Period:*                         08/08/2023 through 09/30/2023.                    

# DATES:

Issued on 11/27/2023.

*Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         12/11/2023.                    

*Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         05/10/2024.                    

# ADDRESSES:

*Visit the MySBA Loan Portal at https://lending.sba.gov*                         to apply for disaster assistance loan.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Alan Escobar, Office of Disaster Recovery & Resilience, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for the State of Hawaii, dated 08/10/2023, is hereby corrected to reflect the deadline for filing applications for physical damages as a result of this disaster to 12/11/2023.

All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008)

Francisco Sánchez, Jr.,

Associate Administrator, Office of Disaster Recovery & Resilience.

[FR Doc. 2023-26559 Filed 12-1-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8026-09-P
Breadcrumb

1. Home

2. Print 

3. Pdf 

4. Node 

5. Entity Print 

Butterflies and Moths

Last Modified: 

Print

USDA requires permits for the importation and interstate movement of live

butterflies and moths under the authority of 7 CFR 330

Apply for a Permit - Use PPQ Form 526, Application for permit to move live plant

pests or noxious weeds 

Shipping Requirements for Importing Regulated Organisms Requiring Red and White

Labels 

Information about Shipping Requirements and Red and White Labels

Butterflies and Moths FAQ's 

View a list of the commonly asked questions and concerns associated with the

application process for butterflies and moths.

Butterflies for Release 

USDA will only consider permits for specific species for release into the environment

depending on where the butterflies are coming from and where they are being sent.

For the monarch butterfly, Danaus plexippus the USDA does not issue permits for

interstate movement across the continental divide for release into the environment.
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Mark J. Brockelman, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of American MediaOperations, Inc.; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report doesnot contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered bythis report; 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

 

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to bedesigned under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared; 

 

b) Evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based onsuch evaluation; and 

 

c) Disclosed in thisreport any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

 

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5.4. 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-60584 Summary Calendar

JOSE LUIS SERRANO-FONSECA Petitioner

v. MICHAEL B MUKASEY, U S ATTORNEY GENERAL Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A45 181 375
Before JOLLY, SMITH, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Jose Luis Serrano-Fonseca petitions for review of an order by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), affirming the order of removal by the Immigration Judge (IJ). He presents two issues. First, he contends: pursuant to Lopez v. Gonzales, 127 S. Ct. 625 (2006), the IJ erred when he determined Serranowas convicted ofan aggravated felony and therefore was not eligible for cancellation of removal. Under 8 U.S.C. § United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D July 15, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 07-60584

2 1252(a)(2)(C), federal courts lack jurisdiction to reviewa final order of removal against an alien who is removable because he was convicted of an aggravated felony. However, such courts have jurisdiction to consider whether Serrano’s prior offense qualifies as an aggravated felony. SeeOmari v. Gonzales, 419 F.3d 303, 306 (5th Cir. 2005). The definiti on of an “aggravated felony” includes “illicit trafficking in a controlled substance

. . . including a drug trafficking crime (as defined in section 924(c) oftitle 18).” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(B). A “drug trafficking crime” includes “any felony punishable under the Controlled Substances Act.” 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(2). A state offense constitutes a felony punishable under the Controlled Substances Act only if it involves conduct punishable as a felony under federal law. L opez, 127 S. Ct. at 629-33. Serrano’s delivery of marijuana would subject him to a potential maximum federal sentence of five years in prison. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(D). Because his offense was punishable by imprisonment for
more than one year, it qualifies as an aggravated felony under federal law. See 21 U.S.C. § 802(44). For his other issue, Serrano contends he was denied due process because the IJ failed to hold a merits hearing before issuing an order of removal. To the extent that he is asserting he was entitled to a merits hearing to present evidence about the drug quantity involved in his offense, he waived the claim because he never requested a hearing on this ground. See Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 346-47 (5th Cir. 2005). Moreover, Serrano’s contentions about the drug quantity would not have affected the finding that his prior conviction constituted an aggravated felony. To the extent that Serrano is asserting he was entitled to a hearing to present evidence relating to his request for cancellation ofremoval, he has no due process right to a hearing for discretionary relief. See Gutierrez-Morales v. Homan, 461 F.3d 605, 610 (5th Cir. 2006). DENIED.
April 18, 2007

27458

#### Cho v. State

Vacated and Remanded
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-30143

Conference Calendar

__________________

ROGER AKINS,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

CHARLES C. FOTI, JR., and

DENTAL DEPARTMENT,

 Defendants,

CHARLES C. FOTI, JR.,

 Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 94-CV-3166

- - - - - - - - - -

February 29, 1996

Before GARWOOD, JONES, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Roger Akins appeals the district court's judgment in favor

of the defendant in his civil rights complaint brought pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Review of the findings and conclusions

depends on a trial transcript. Akins has failed to provide a

transcript. His appeal is therefore DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS. See
No. 95-30143

-2-

Fed. R. App. P. 10(b); Powell v. Estelle, 959 F.2d 22, 26 (5th

Cir.), cert. denied, 113 S. Ct. 668 (1992); 5th Cir. R. 42.2. 

APPEAL DISMISSED.
#### Gerald D. EISENBARTH, Appellant (Defendant below), v. Jeanette A. EISENBARTH, Appellee (Plaintiff below).

No. 4556.

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

April 20, 1976.

Donald E. Jones of Jones & Rogers, Torrington, for appellant.

No appearance for appellee.

Before GUTHRIE, C. J., and Mc-CLINTOCK, RAPER, THOMAS and ROSE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment and decree granting a divorce to Jeanette A. Eisenbarth from the appellant, Gerald D. Eisenbarth.

This is a most simple case. Plaintiff based her claim for divorce upon the ground of intolerable indignities. Defendant denied this and pleaded that plaintiff was guilty of the same misconduct. After a trial the court made the following finding in its decree:

> “THE COURT FURTHER FINDS that Plaintiff is guilty of the greater indignity than that found against Defendant and finds that if the Defendant is so inclined to Amend his Answers as to Counter-Claim for divorce that the Court would grant the divorce to the Defendant.”

but in face of such finding entered the following judgment:

> “That the bonds of matrimony heretofore existing between Jeanette A. Eisen-barth and Gerald D. Eisenbarth, be, and they are hereby forever dissolved, and *888since Defendant has not amended his answer to Counter-Claim for divorce, that the Plaintiff be, and she is hereby granted an absolute Decree of divorce from the Defendant.”

This judgment and decree simply cannot stand in face of § 20-55, W.S.1957, which provides:

> “No divorce shalll be decreed in any case where * * * the party complaining shall be guilty of the same crime or misconduct charged against the defendant.”

This plain statutory language requires us to reverse the judgment. Additionally, this court has recognized that where the parties are guilty of equal fault, neither is entitled to a divorce, *Logan v. Logan,*Wyo., 396 P.2d 198, 199; and this was earlier articulated in the case of *Brydon v. Brydon, Wyo.,*365 P.2d 55, 56. In *Piner v. Piner,*Wyo., 511 P.2d 94, 96, the court again recognized the binding force of this statute, although holding if fault were “slight” it would not prevent the granting of a divorce.

To affirm this judgment this court would be forced to engage in judicial repeal of § 20-55 and to modify or reverse the above-mentioned cases. This we must not do, and we call attention to the lesson in Piner and Logan, that the legislature is the forum which should be addressed if it is deemed socially desirable to effect the far-reaching change of statutory law necessary to sustain this judgment.

The judgment is therefore reversed and the case dismissed.
Breadcrumb

1. Home

2. Print 

3. Pdf 

4. Node 

5. Entity Print 

Environmental Compliance

Last Modified: 

Print

The Environmental Compliance Team supports the Agency's pest and disease

control programs by coordinating program compliance with environmental laws,

regulations, policies, and guidance.

Background

Environmental Monitoring Plans and Standard Operating Procedures

Contact

Kai Caraher

Biological Scientist

Phone: 301-851-2345